On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 15:44 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 03/02/2011 03:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Truly "synchronous" requires two-phase commit, which this never was. So
> > the absence or presence of the poorly specified parameter called
> > allow_standalone_primary should have no bearing on what we call this
> > feature.
> >
>
> I haven't been following this very closely, but to me this screams out
> that we simply must not call it "synchronous".
As long as we describe it via its characteristics, then I'll be happy:
* significantly reduces the possibility of data loss in a sensibly
configured cluster
* allow arbitrary N+k resilience that can meet and easily exceed"5 nines" data durability
* isn't two phase commit
* isn't a magic bullet that will protect your data even after your
hardware fails or is disconnected
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
